search for: checkdagfortailcallsandfixthem

...would be nice if all of the > common code can be handled by SelectionDAGISel. For example, it seems > possible for SDIsel to determine which operands can be overwritten and > issued the copies there? > > Yes the common code between x86/ppc could be moved to SelectionDAGISel. See CheckDAGForTailCallsAndFixThem(). > There seem to be quite a bit of duplicated code. Can you refactor? Created LowerMemOpCallTo. -arnold

...ommon code can be handled by SelectionDAGISel. For example, it seems > > possible for SDIsel to determine which operands can be overwritten and > > issued the copies there? > > > > > Yes the common code between x86/ppc could be moved to > SelectionDAGISel. See CheckDAGForTailCallsAndFixThem(). > > > There seem to be quite a bit of duplicated code. Can you refactor? > Created LowerMemOpCallTo. > > -arnold >

Hi all, I changed the code that checks whether a tail call is really eligible for optimization so that it performs the check/fix in SelectionDAGISel.cpp:BuildSelectionDAG() as suggest by Evan. Also eliminated an error that caused the remaining failing test cases in the test-suite. The results look very nice (on darwin x86, r42486). The same number (46) of failing test cases on patched

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Evan Cheng wrote: >> the stack adjustment only fastcc was not one of them. Now that fastcc >> can cause tail call optimization i had to change the convention from >> caller pops arguments to callee pops arguments in order to allow tail >> call optimization in a general way. > > Hmmm. Ok. So this is due to X86CallingConv.td changes? Unfortunately

Comments: CheckDAGForTailCallsAndFixThem - 1. for (SelectionDAG::allnodes_iterator BE = DAG.allnodes_begin(), + BI = prior(DAG.allnodes_end()); BI != BE; BI--) { Please use pre-decrement instead of post-decrement. 2. The function is slower than it should be. You are scanning all the nodes in the DAG twice. You should just ex...

On Apr 22, 2008, at 4:58 AM, Arnold Schwaighofer wrote: > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:30 AM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> > wrote: >> More nitpicks: >> ... >> No need for else here. :-) > Done >> SPDiff = (int)CallerMinReservedArea - (int)ParamSize; >> >> Just change last statement to >> int SPDiff = (int)... > Done >>

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:30 AM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: > More nitpicks: > ... > No need for else here. :-) Done > SPDiff = (int)CallerMinReservedArea - (int)ParamSize; > > Just change last statement to > int SPDiff = (int)... Done > > +bool > +PPCTargetLowering::IsEligibleForTailCallOptimization(SDOperand Call, > +